Spring (2014)

This is one interesting film which I only just got round to seeing. It's hard to lock down the genre really, as there's so much going on in there! I'll start with romance, then horror, body horror, thriller, and finally drama, I think! It's probably going to be hard to write this without spoilers, so I suggest you watch it first then see if you agree!

It’s easy to get lost in the film because the central mystery is well hidden for quite a long time. In fact, it starts really slowly as we get to know Evan, a young American man, at home, caring for his mum in her last days with cancer. We stay with him through a short but moving scene as she passes away. Cut to the wake, where Evan is goaded by a local lout and ends up attacking him. He's filled with grief, having also lost his dad previously, and is now being hounded by the cops (presumably for GBH), so he does a runner! He gets on a plane, quick, and heads away from the USA. He doesn't care where, but it happens to be Italy.

When he gets there, a coastal resort, he buddies up with some British louts, gets drunk a lot, and behaves obnoxiously with them, but eventually they head for Holland, so he's there alone. During this time, he bumps into the pretty Louise. He chases her. She's coy - doesn't much want to get involved - but he's insistent and driven. So she dates him. And sleeps with him.

She's a genetics student, free-spirited, open-minded and he can feel himself falling for her very quickly in the week we spend with the pair - whirlwind romantic stuff aplenty. However, all is not quite what it seems, as Evan finds a syringe on her bathroom floor and assumes that maybe she's a junkie. He confronts her. She explains it away, saying that she has a skin condition which makes it hard for her to be in the sun - and this serum helps her to get round it, basically. I guess you can see where this is going already!

Spoilers from here!

We start to see Louise acting strangely. She injects herself with this mysterious chemical, her skin kind of shifts and cracks - and she disappears at night to prey on local animals (and on one occasion, a tourist)! Eventually, Evan walks in on her mid-transformation into some octopus-like monster/creature with tentacles and tails. When he's (very quickly) put two and two together (instead of legging it and never returning), he gives her one of her injections (which is lying around on the floor). She recovers (returns to a human form) and he starts to quiz her as to WTF is going on. As you would. If you hadn't legged it!

This is honestly where I got a bit lost as to what Louise is. It seems that she's about 2,000 years old, born in the Roman era, but not a vampire (though she behaves like one sometimes, drinking blood), nor a werewolf (though she behaves like one sometimes, transforming like something from the set of An American Werewolf in London), but apparently she's an "immortal evolutionary anomaly". Turns out that, when she eventually explains herself to Evan, every 20 years her body undergoes some sort of violent 'reset' as her cells mutate uncontrollably, mimicking various stages of evolution (claws, tentacles, scales, etc.). It's all very imaginative!

In order to survive this mutation and another 20 years, she must get herself pregnant. Her body then uses the embryonic stem cells to regenerate her organs and skin. However, this process usually results in her 'birthing' herself and losing her previous identity or simply consuming the genetic material to restart. Yes, I had to look all this up as, by this stage, I was even more lost!

The finale of the film involves a dilemma for her, as she knows that she can stay semi-immortal and remain a monster but can't really love anyone or change. However, if she falls in love (which she never has done up to now, avoiding it), she can become mortal again and live out a life from 20 naturally. So you can imagine what the ending is going to be like. She either falls in love with Evan and does the latter, or doesn't, transforms, and consumes him! I won't spoil the outcome of that for you!

It's all good fun with Justin Benson (Resolution) in charge of the very capable, engaging and convincing Lou Taylor Pucci (Evan) and Nadia Hilker (Louise). The scenery looks after and speaks for itself - gorgeous land and seascapes of a lovely, culturally-rich Italian village and bay. The special effects are sparse in relation to the runtime of nearly two hours, but when they come, they are done very well, as I watched a little wider-eyed than I had been! The story is clearly bonkers, but it's injected with some humour here and there and holds together very nicely. Well worth a watch if you haven't beaten me to it.

The Surfer (2024) - A Guest Review by Adrian Brain

“Nicolas Cage is The Surfer” announce the opening credits, as his character doesn't have a name in the movie - the first sign that there is more to this trippy psychological drama than first appears. It is also very funny, in no small part due to Cage who knows exactly what he is doing and how to carry the audience along with him. It's impossible to imagine an actor who could have topped this performance.

The Surfer, clearly a wealthy businessman, takes his son for a surf at an idyllic coastal spot where The Surfer grew up. His ulterior motive is to point out a house overlooking the bay that he is going to buy, in a last attempt to keep his disintegrating family together. Approaching the sea, The Surfer and son meet a group of young men who have the mantra “don't live here, don't surf here” and aren't above violence to enforce this. They are led by Scally (Julian McMahon, absolutely superb in his last film), seemingly the antithesis of The Surfer. The son leaves and the drama unfolds in the single setting of the beach and the nearby car park. It is an oft' told tale of a man being stripped back to basics, but with a twist.

I wish I'd seen this at the cinema when it was released; the visual style is super-vivid with saturated colours. Flashbacks (premonitions?) have an ethereal feel to them, with a stylised 50s style fairground soundtrack. The writing & screenplay are equally precise in intent with a few spots of deliberate ambiguity, giving the film unexpected depth.

The main thrust of the film is toxic masculinity and reliance on property and possessions for happiness. It succeeds because you can enjoy it as a story, taking its presentation literally. However, there are multiple levels you can read into the film.

I've seen reviews that read Dostoyevski and Kafka into this, but it strikes me as being closer to one of JG Ballard's novels where the central character subconsciously undermines their very existence in order to find a way forward in life. Either way, I loved this, I can understand the criticisms, but it is right up my street and highly recommended. Eat the rat!

Rumpelstiltskin (1995)

When we were kids in the 1960s, one of our favourite Ladybird books kicking about the house was Rumpelstiltskin. I'm not sure if such a nasty, dark tale was fit for toddlers, but it seems that rules about that stuff were different back then. No wonder I'm screwed up! With the passing of Mark Jones (Leprechaun) this week, I thought I'd revisit his film on the topic, as he reimagined the so-called fairy tale.

The film's take on the story starts with a brief visit to the 15th century, when the foul-mouthed, hunchbacked, ugly creature Rumpelstiltskin had done the deal for the miller's daughter. He spun her gold, but she squelched on the deal, refusing to give him her first-born child. Things turn nasty and various dubious 'middle-ages' characters and witches give him the bum's rush out of town, eventually putting a curse on him which seals him up in a green stone figurine. He is to stay there forever - or until someone makes a wish on it. They chuck it into the sea.

Move forward to the present day (well, 1995 I guess) and the figurine turns up, unexplainedly, in a dark, back-alley curiosities shop of sorts in Los Angeles. Shelley Stewart, a young widow whose police officer husband was recently killed in the line of duty, visits the shop with her friend. She finds the strange figurine and, in a moment of grief, wishes for her husband to come back just one more time.

The wish triggers the release of Rumpelstiltskin. He appears, looking like a rotting, leather-clad version of the fairy tale character, and fulfils the wish - but with a cruel twist. Her husband briefly "returns" as himself, cons her into a night of sex, then - having had his wicked way with her - turns back into the dreaded creature, demanding his payment - her newborn baby!

The rest of the film plays out as a high-stakes chase as Shelley flees with her brat, aided by an eccentric TV show host named Max (no, really) who happened to be passing when her car broke down. Rumpelstiltskin quickly learns how to expertly ride a motorbike, then a huge lorry, as the film briefly turns into something of a Duel (1971) outing! He uses his supernatural strength and dark magic to kill anyone who gets in his way, including several police officers and bystanders.

Shelley discovers that the only way to defeat the creature is the same way he was defeated in the original tale (she and her friend rediscover the story in a book), by knowing his name. However, in this Mark Jones version, simply saying it isn't enough - he's also got to be physically destroyed while his name is spoken! You can probably imagine the outcome as the chase continues - chaos, destruction with blood and gore in its wake.

Mark Jones’ stuff often blurs the line between the terrifying and the absurd, creating a specific horror schtick that is interesting, for sure! This one is available now on various streaming services, along with the whole Leprechaun series and the likes of his Quiet Kill (2004), Triloquist (2008) and Scorned (2013). The distinctive-looking (even before makeup) Max Grodénchik (Deep Space Nine) plays the titular star, the very pretty American TV evergreen Kim Johnston Ulrich plays Shelley, Tommy Blaze is Max and Allyce Beasley (Moonlighting) is Shelley's friend, Hildy. Oh, and watch out for the gypsy woman played by 3rd Rock from the Sun’s Mrs Dubcek, Elmarie Wendel!

It's all good fun, tongue firmly in cheek throughout. It's not a fairy tale for kids (even if the dubious original was) and it's all here for the audience to have a laugh with. Once again - Friday night, beers, popcorn! Enjoy - and spare a nod to the late Mr Jones.

VTech VM3250 Video Monitor

I have tried a Tapo C210 2K 3MP security camera and it works fine, but for my needs, it’s a little OTT. I really don’t need it clogging up my network and tying up a phone screen just to see who is creeping up on me as I sit at my workstation! So, I went the simple and cheap route, tracking down a monitor and camera that most people would buy to watch their brat sleeping.

The setup I have is a workstation in a room with only one window, and that points the wrong way to see what’s going on out front leading to my door. I realise that if I had the Tapo unit, I’d be able to monitor the camera from Istanbul (assuming the network stays alive), but I really can't imagine a world in which I’m likely to leave my country, let alone my town - or even my neighbourhood, actually!

I wanted an always-on screen on my desk, powered, using its own network (not mine), with a camera at the other end. It doesn’t even need to function at night, really, as my curtains will be drawn. I just want to be able to see who is coming and whether or not I want to pretend to be out! No, not really - but you know what I mean. If the plumber or a courier is due, I can keep an eye open while getting on with work, instead of constantly leaping up to look or listening for knocks.

All of which, yes, can be achieved with "Alexa this", "TP-Link that" or "Home Network the other" for those who have one set up. Well, I don’t, and I’m not really interested, to be honest. I had a smart plug on a light a while back but concluded that I could easily just use the wall switch - or reach across and turn a lamp on in the traditional way. You remember? When humans had legs and arms! Besides, I don’t know how much bandwidth is being taken from my router - and it won't work if the router goes down or there's an outage.

So, enter the baby monitor! Which one to get, though? I asked Gemini. She led me through a merry dance starting at £300, but we ended up with this one for £38. Exploring it with her showed that this cheap’n’cheerful model was all that was needed - and it was. It does the job perfectly, with some extra features I doubt I’ll ever use.

The camera plugs into the mains via its own proprietary cable (which is a bit of a shame), whereas the mothership unit with the screen uses USB-C. It can be used plugged in and always charging (as I do), or via the built-in battery - presumably for parents of said brats so they can move from kitchen to lounge and still see their horror snoozing. Apparently, the 2,600mAh battery will last for up to 19 hours of video monitoring or 29 hours of audio if you shut off the screen.

The camera has a microphone and the base unit has a speaker on the back. In fact, the camera also has a speaker so people can (presumably) sing sickly lullabies from the screened unit to the little blighter if they’re too pissed to get off the sofa!

Press and hold the "Talk" button on the base unit and it works on-the-fly. Let go and it cuts off - so no embarrassing bedroom antics can be heard by the babysitter, after she decides to stay the night after all! There are two volume buttons on the top edge to adjust the speaker but it is decidedly tinny at both ends. In the absence of a naughty toddler, I played some music next to the camera and it continued perfectly when I pressed the LCD on/off button.

The screen is a baseline, functional colour LCD - no (need for a) pretty OLED here. It's 320 x 240 pixels and just 2.8" diagonally. The camera sits on a ball-joint for positioning and holds well - you can also wall-mount it if needed. There is a zoom button on the base unit which provides an instant 2x digital zoom, which comes with the inevitable loss of quality (which thankfully avoids parents getting too close to snotty-nosed kids in high definition), but it works fine for my purposes - zooming in to see the colour of a car more clearly, for example.

The screen provides a temperature readout from a sensor in the camera, adding fuel to my fire, being obsessed with the climate! There’s also a battery icon with "growing" bars as it charges. The camera has an LED and light sensor on the front which, when dark enough, switches the camera to Night Vision (low-light black and white) which works well and the IR stuff does the job for a view in totally dark (to the human eye) conditions.

But back to my usage and there is a problem pointing the camera out of a window at night (even from a dark room), as the LED and IR sensors reflect horribly on the glass, making it unusable in my tests. Strategic use of black tape over the sensors would cut out the LED, but the IR sensors are in a large circle, so you’d have to cut a ring with a hole in the middle for the lens. Fortunately, I don’t need it when it’s dark outside. It’s not a "security camera" as such - rather a "see who is coming" one.

There’s a very clunky menu system with cursor keys and a "Select" button. You can control the screen brightness and a screen-off timer (to save power) which has a maximum timeout of 60 minutes. That’s enough for me, as I can just tap a button to start another hour. For parents, the microphone continues to work when the screen is timed out, so it’s "audio-safe". There is also a VOX (voice-activated) mode where the screen triggers at a certain noise level. Finally, there is a temperature alert and a mode that plays "relaxing" sounds like waves on a shore or tunes - again, if you can’t be arsed to get up!

There’s a lot to like here, for my purposes at least. You can, of course, pay much more than £38 for better features, but for my use, it’s perfect. No recording needed - just a simple, well, baby, monitor - with no sprogs in sight. Hurrah! Here's my Amazon Affiliate Link if you want to buy one and help me out with a few pennies in the process. Thanks.

Cannibal Mukbang (2023)

I must have led a sheltered life, having not heard of the term "Mukbang". Apparently, it’s a thing (especially in South Korea) where people live-stream videos of themselves eating large quantities of food while talking to their audience. Really? What will they think of next?! Anyway, this film by director/writer Aimee Kuge adds a twist to this - as you can see from the title - introducing a cannibalistic edge. "An exploration of one’s relationships with food, sexuality, and revenge" goes the tagline. "How far would you go in the name of love?"

The story centres on Mark (Nate Wise), a man who defines 'shy and quiet'. A clumsy, awkward customer service agent by day, Mark spends his nights retreating into the digital safety of horror films and Mukbang videos. His stagnant life is violently interrupted when he is struck by a car in a convenience store car park, having just 'eyed-up' Ash inside.

It turns out that Ash (April Consalo) is the driver. A manic, free-spirited redhead who, at first (and second) glance, reminds me very much of a young Tori Amos! Mark is knocked unconscious, but rather than calling an ambulance, she takes him home to nurse him back to health. What follows is a whirlwind romance that feels surprisingly tender - until the fridge is opened!

Mark soon discovers that Ash is a minor internet celebrity who has taken the Mukbang trend to its most literal, lethal conclusion. She doesn’t just eat for the camera, she hunts! Positioning herself as a female kind of Dexter, Ash targets the scumbags of society - predators, abusers, and misogynists - transforming her energy into vigilantism. But unlike Dexter, she doesn’t stop at just the kill!

The chemistry between the two leads is worthy of note, as we see the story unfold from both of their perspectives, moral standpoints, and - in his case - initial shock and horror. We watch as she draws him in and they fall in love. He clearly wants to please her, even if he doesn't quite understand his own growing acceptance of her lifestyle. She shows him the life she has chosen and he slowly adopts it, both to be with her and to transform himself from a wimp into a confident person.

There is plenty of graphic violence on show as the kills progress, along with strong language, some nudity and one sex scene which finally bonds their connection and signals his total acceptance. Despite the gore, the film isn't really scary. It’s more of a dark comedy, often with the meat cleaver doing good service! There is a local subplot involving a serial killer on the loose - it isn’t Ash, but rather someone she would very much like to get onto her table, as Dex would say!

At 1 hour and 44 minutes long, the third quarter does drag a bit, mostly during the relationship and background segments where we discover their respective origins. However, there is one glaringly significant factor about Mark throughout the film which is explained, but certainly not made the most of as a feature or development point. Mark is also very close to his brother, which causes significant problems later in the story.

The cinematography and sets are very colourful, often feeling like a surreal 1960s Andy Warhol outing during the various dream sequences. April Consalo’s performance is great—very convincing and enjoyable to watch. She is a bright and confident actress. Nate Wise is not far behind, though his role doesn’t quite allow him the same scope and flair.

If you fancy some graphic violence and 'female rage' themes, this is a real treat. It reminded me not only of Dexter but also Fresh (2022) and May (2002). Aimee Kuge has done well with her debut, blending dark romantic comedy with blood, guts and gore. Great fun and highly recommended. It is now available on several streaming services here in the UK.

Phone Memory Cards and Audio Jacks in 2026

There was a tech journo writing today about not missing 3.5mm audio-out sockets on phones on ‘makeuseof’, and then leaning into microSD cards and notification sliders. I never did much care about the latter, but the first two - well, we’ve banged on for years on PSC about how great it is to have them both. However, I have to admit that whenever I get my SIM card into a Sony Xperia phone here, I smile at the 3.5mm audio-out socket and dutifully put my 1TB microSD card into the slot. And then - I realise when I switch to another phone - I have not used either of them once!

I guess for some it’s a ‘nice to have rather than not’, but in today’s super-connected world and with staggeringly good Bluetooth, I wonder just how many people actually still need these things, as the journo has concluded. As for 3.5mm head/earphones, I’m really not audiophile enough to gain any advantage from a physical jack option - and I’d wager that 90% of Xperia (and other phones which claim to have great audio from the jack) users plug in gear that can’t make use of it anyway. Don’t get me wrong - it’s great tinkering fun to see it all work - but in the real world, it’s more likely to annoy by catching cables on door handles or tripping over them, crashing the phone to the floor when going to put the kettle on, than it is of any real use!

Of course, there will be niche cases and people who can and do appreciate the difference - and do have top-notch quality gear that works beautifully in tandem - but it feels like they will be a huge minority. Plugging it into a speaker maybe - well, OK, same applies really - great tinkering fun and nostalgia, but real-world? Of course, everyone is using Bluetooth - and BT on an Xperia phone (and most others now) is staggeringly reliable and good with a long range (usually) that will get you way past the kitchen kettle and most likely to the end of your long, long garden!

Moving away from Xperia, the chap argues that given the quality of one’s phone’s inbuilt DAC, the volume coming out of the 3.5mm jack might not be that high either. "If you like to use high-impedance headphones or quality IEMs, you'll find that the stock headphone audio-out doesn't have the power needed to reach their full potential. Additionally, since Android downsamples hi-res audio files played out of an inbuilt headphone jack, you're missing out on the best quality if you use it. Android often defaults to 48kHz resampling for hi-res audio files played through a default device output, which is higher than CD quality. However, if you want to play files up to 192kHz/24-bit at their full quality, you'll need an external USB DAC. So, despite having a 3.5mm audio-out right there on my phone, I found myself choosing to plug in a USB-C DAC instead" he said. I’m not smart (or audiophile) enough to know if all that is true, but he seems to know what he’s on about!

So then we come to the microSD card function. I live in a world where Plex is my friend. When I’m at home or out and about, as long as my router is on at base, I can just stream whatever I want, wherever I am. Anything from my 16TB HDD. So when do I ever need a microSD memory card? Well, for me and my life, never! But, again, there are people who live in dodgy connection zones or travel through them, and I guess that could impact their life if they can't get to essential files they need for their presentation the next morning. The other point, though, is that baseline storage on phones is going up and appears to be peaking generally, at least out of China, at 512GB now. And that’s surely plenty of movie/TV/music space for anyone planning a night away - or just having it there in case.

But then I suppose if you don’t have it (and/or you haven’t planned ahead for some kooky reason) you could always do something to pass the time. Like going for a pint. Or chatting with another human being. Anyway, the point is that I tend to agree on this based on my behaviour. Not once (beyond testing for reviews) probably in the last 5 years have I actually used data on a microSD card, nor plugged anything into a 3.5mm audio jack! Maybe you’re different.

Downrange (2017)

Ryûhei Kitamura’s 2018 survival thriller Downrange is a bloody exercise in tension. Clocking in at a lean 90 minutes, the time passes quickly. It is genuinely tense in places, with some truly grisly special effects thrown in for good measure. Originally a Shudder production, it is now available to stream on Amazon Prime Video as well.

The setup is simple - a group of annoying American college students, all strangers to one another, are carpooling across a remote stretch of country road when they suffer a tyre blowout. As they clamber out to divide the labour of fitting the spare, the young man taking the lead discovers a bullet falling out of the shredded rubber of the old one. The tyre hasn't just burst, it has been shot!

A sniper is hidden in the trees, picking them off one by one before they can even comprehend the situation. Eventually, the survivors shift into desperate survival mode, huddled behind their vehicle - the only barrier they believe the bullets cannot penetrate. They manage to pinpoint his location and even record video footage of his nest in a tree, but the power dynamic remains firmly in the gunman's favour.

Inevitably, there is little to no mobile phone signal! The only spot where a bars-of-service icon appears is just out of reach, beyond the safety of the car. We spend the majority of the film watching the group’s numbers dwindle as they try to outwit the sniper, while he pounces on every mistake they make.

The film is excellently paced, thrusting us into the action within the first five minutes. There is no time for deep character development, which I think actually benefits the film. We don’t really need to hear about their whining backgrounds - though the script does meander there briefly at one point - as that isn't what this dastardly thriller is about! It is pure terror for terror’s sake.

Director Kitamura (The Midnight Meat Train) successfully creates a sense of claustrophobia within a wide-open space by frequently tightening the frame. The camera often swirls and glides around the car, mimicking the predatory gaze of the sniper or the disorientation of the victims. These creative angles give the film an energy that sets it apart from typical low-budget thrillers.

Many of the decisions taken by the teens are irrational, though one could argue that panic and uncontrolled anxiety would lead to such lapses in judgement. Nonetheless, they are incredibly grating! To be honest, I found myself rooting for the sniper! This lack of sympathy is exacerbated by the (unknown to me) cast's acting, which is unfortunately not top notch. It is frequently wooden across the board, reaching a point where the viewer ceases to care who lives or dies!

The script is functional but lacks any real depth, and the music is equally unremarkable - generic filler that fails to elevate the sense of dread. However, as noted, the film is unapologetically gory. There is splatter aplenty and the practical effects are impressive enough. Heads explode, limbs are shredded and the camera lingers on the carnage often!

Without spoiling the ending, the film’s strength lies in the process - the sustained tension and the stress of the situation. By keeping the sniper’s identity and motives hidden throughout the stress of the situation, the film keeps you on the edge of your seat as it hurtles towards the grizzly finale. While it won't win any awards for its screenplay or acting, Downrange is an entertaining, fast-paced exercise in thrills, fake blood and smart cinematography. It certainly gets a pass from me.